Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Tue, 5 Jul 2022 10:52:34 +0100
From:   Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
To:     Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>
Cc:     "guanghui.fgh" <guanghuifeng@linux.alibaba.com>,
        baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com, catalin.marinas@arm.com,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org, david@redhat.com, jianyong.wu@arm.com,
        james.morse@arm.com, quic_qiancai@quicinc.com,
        christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu, jonathan@marek.ca,
        mark.rutland@arm.com, thunder.leizhen@huawei.com,
        anshuman.khandual@arm.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rppt@kernel.org,
        geert+renesas@glider.be, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        yaohongbo@linux.alibaba.com, alikernel-developer@linux.alibaba.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] arm64: mm: fix linear mem mapping access performance
 degradation
Message-ID: <20220705095231.GB552@willie-the-truck>
References: <20220704103523.GC31437@willie-the-truck>
 <73f0c53b-fd17-c5e9-3773-1d71e564eb50@linux.alibaba.com>
 <20220704111402.GA31553@willie-the-truck>
 <4accaeda-572f-f72d-5067-2d0999e4d00a@linux.alibaba.com>
 <20220704131516.GC31684@willie-the-truck>
 <2ae1cae0-ee26-aa59-7ed9-231d67194dce@linux.alibaba.com>
 <20220704142313.GE31684@willie-the-truck>
 <6977c692-78ca-5a67-773e-0389c85f2650@linux.alibaba.com>
 <20220704163815.GA32177@willie-the-truck>
 <CAMj1kXEvY5QXOUrXZ7rBp9As=65uTTFRSSq+FPt-n4M2P-_VtQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <CAMj1kXEvY5QXOUrXZ7rBp9As=65uTTFRSSq+FPt-n4M2P-_VtQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jul 04, 2022 at 07:09:23PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Jul 2022 at 18:38, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 04, 2022 at 10:34:07PM +0800, guanghui.fgh wrote:
> > > Thanks.
> > >
> > > 在 2022/7/4 22:23, Will Deacon 写道:
> > > > On Mon, Jul 04, 2022 at 10:11:27PM +0800, guanghui.fgh wrote:
> ...
> > > > > Namely, it's need to use non block/section mapping for crashkernel mem
> > > > > before shringking.
> > > >
> > > > Well, yes, but we can change arch_kexec_[un]protect_crashkres() not to do
> > > > that if we're leaving the thing mapped, no?
> > > >
> > > I think we should use arch_kexec_[un]protect_crashkres for crashkernel mem.
> > >
> > > Because when invalid crashkernel mem pagetable, there is no chance to rd/wr
> > > the crashkernel mem by mistake.
> > >
> > > If we don't use arch_kexec_[un]protect_crashkres to invalid crashkernel mem
> > > pagetable, there maybe some write operations to these mem by mistake which
> > > may cause crashkernel boot error and vmcore saving error.
> >
> > I don't really buy this line of reasoning. The entire main kernel is
> > writable, so why do we care about protecting the crashkernel so much? The
> > _code_ to launch the crash kernel is writable! If you care about preventing
> > writes to memory which should not be writable, then you should use
> > rodata=full.
> >
> 
> This is not entirely true - the core kernel text and rodata are
> remapped r/o in the linear map, whereas all module code and rodata are
> left writable when rodata != full.

Yes, sorry, you're quite right. The kernel text is only writable if
rodata=off.

But I still think it makes sense to protect the crashkernel only if
rodata=full (which is the default on arm64) as this allows us to rely
on page mappings and I think fits well with what we do for modules.

> But the conclusion is the same, imo: if you can't be bothered to
> protect a good chunk of the code and rodata that the kernel relies on,
> why should the crashkernel be treated any differently?

Thanks.

Will